Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is Canada's future in the Americas?Despite the fact that Canada has been searching for ways to diversify its international relations, political alliances, and trading partners over the last several decades, and some Latin American states are among the most dynamic developing nations and emerging markets in the world, concrete sign of improvements in the relationship are scarce.This is not a new problem.Historians and political scientists have long argued that ties between Canada and Latin America were weak and intermittent for most of the last century.The Mulroney government's decision to occupy Canada's long-empty seat in the assembly of the Organization of American States in 1990 is often seen as a turning point in Canada's relations with the region.Even after that point, however, the relationship has frequently been described as fluctuating and non-committal, reflecting weak historical precedents but also the absence of strong economic, social, political, and cultural ties.As well, successive Canadian governments lacked a sustained commitment to promoting a deeper relationship with their Latin American counterparts.In part this reflects an instinctive long-standing preference on the part of Canadian governments to prioritize their relationships with the United States, their largest market and traditional ally, and with European counterparts that are viewed as Canadian equals.Governments like that of Paul Martin that wished to signal Canada's commitment to help the poorest and most marginalized parts of the world tended to turn to Africa instead (Cameron 2007).Stephen Harper's Conservative Party government (2006-15) did prioritize Latin America in its foreign policy with the development of an "Americas Strategy."This strategy, announced by Harper in Santiago, Chile, in 2007, did lead to higher levels of diplomatic engagement with the region and flows of development assistance and more frequent exchanges between Canadian politicians and bureaucrats and
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.432 | 0.173 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".